Parking Code of Practice Consultation - 8 weeks from 11th July 2025

Castle

Nellymoser said:

I too have saved mine, keep returning as not quite finished and keep adding more.

In many of my answers I've pointed out the MHCLG already holds this information and evidence as it has been provided in the previous consultations and/or I find I'm informing MHCLG where to find the evidence. 

This is part of my answer to question No 13:

Courts are motorists only option for a truly independent and fair adjudication. 

The MoJ will have the evidence. They hold the data on the number of parking claims filed and the high number of discontinuance of parking cases in England/Wales by the parking operator's solicitors.

The data Scottish Courts hold will show that parking operators don't pursue parking cases through the Scottish courts the way they do in E/W. 

According the Impact Assessment report signed off in July 2023 this work is already underway; (page 62 for reference).

"7.40. Work is ongoing with the Ministry of Justice and the industry to obtain data on the number of parking claims that are currently going through the court system and outcomes of these claims, and through the call for evidence the Government is aiming to gather evidence on the behavioural implications of introducing the Code and various options for parking charges and debt recovery fees". 

Nellymoser

I have made reference to the Impact Assessment in some of my answers but I'm not prepared to dig out specific paragraphs to evidence my opinion where I feel MHCLG should already have knowledge of this.

I'm prepared to provide new evidence such as reported FOI figures and revenue a PPC generated from the reduced £20 pcn cost and specific evidence on 2nd stage appeals service from their annual reports.

I've just started to read the Govt Options Assessment it said the dept received around 1,000 responses to the 2023 Call for Evidence. Pity DLUHC didn't publish the response to it. Hopefully MHCLG will after closure of this one.

Jape_demino

As many here have already pointed out, I'm puzzled by some of the questions that ask for evidence or data sources. For the average motorist like me, this kind of information surely isn't expected .

However, within the scope of the consultation, the following is stated::

"This is a public consultation and is open to everyone to respond to. Section 2 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to consult persons who represent the interests of those who provide, operate or manage private car parking facilities and those who use or may use them, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.  Views are especially invited from carpark users, those who represent the interests of motorists, the parking industry, landowners, and businesses involved in debt recovery to help inform decision making. However, views are welcome from anyone else who has an interest in private parking.

This raises the question: could the evidence-based questions intended for parking operators, landowners, and debt recovery businesses, as opposed to everyday motorists?

If so, then perhaps it’s fine to respond honestly, even with “no” to those questions, while still making your perspective as a motorist heard, 

Coupon-mad

Yep I need to have a thorough read. But that will be in August for me. Family things are taking precedence this month.

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

Local Authorities increase their rates by 50% at charge certificate stage for a very good reason and is supported by Government; and their costs are a lot less than the private sector.. Just saying.

It’s well-established that PCNs issued by local authorities are considerably lower than the £100 routinely imposed by private parking firms—and those public sector charges are calibrated to match the seriousness of the infringement.

In my area, the Council starts at £50 for lesser contraventions, with a maximum of £70 for the most serious. If a charge certificate is issued, 50% is added—resulting in £75 and £105 respectively.

So where exactly is this £70 coming from? It doesn’t align with statutory authority nor Council practice. It seems entirely baseless, almost as if it were plucked from thin air. #Outrageous Scam (Hansard) 

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

Read the attached Explanatory Notes and pass this information to your wonderful members at your next seminar . 

Kaizen2024

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

This is correct; however, a savvy operator will quote the £70 in their NTK / NTD and it is not mandatory to use POFA anyway.

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

And let’s not forget: Paragraphs 4(5) and 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 make it clear that the maximum sum recoverable from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper no more, no less. The Act expressly prohibits additional charges being levied against the keeper beyond what was originally stood at the time the PCN was given. 

This is correct; however, a savvy operator will quote the £70 in their NTK / NTD and it is not mandatory to use POFA anyway.

Your argument rests on a foundation of flawed reasoning and deliberate misrepresentation. 

But by all means, keep digging - the contradictions become more glaring with every step. At this rate, the IPC risks being reduced to little more than a convenient gateway to the DVLA database. Competing on membership prices with the BPA .  

Kaizen2024

The MOJ do not agree with you, as confirmed in a webinar a few years ago hosted by the DCLG.

Bazarius

Kaizen2024 said:

The MOJ do not agree with you, as confirmed in a webinar a few years ago hosted by the DCLG.

If you’re so confident in that Pofa  interpretation, then be bold - take it all the way to the Supreme Court and let the law speak for itself. 

The fact remains: inflated recovery charges are routinely struck out in county courts. It’s telling that Britannia Parking quietly withdrew from Crosby and leaned on Semark-Julien in the joint Appeal instead. Why? Because dragging Crosby through the courts risked exposing the parking industry’s exploitative practices in broad daylight. The strategy is transparent, and it’s not fooling anyone.

Nellymoser

daveyjp said:

Brie said:

...to voice our disgust at the whole process?

That's the problem.
The pointed and very specific nature of the questions means there is very little scope to 'voice our disgust at the whole process'.

I see there are two options to 'voice our disgust at the whole process'.

Question 33: Do you have any other comments in relation to the proposals and matters set out in this consultation or in the Options Assessment published alongside the consultation?

and near the end of the consultation is the other option:

Are you satisfied that this consultation has followed the Consultation Principles? If not or you have any other observations about how we can improve the process please contact us via our complaints procedure.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consultation-principles-guidance/consultation-principles-2018

I'm certainly planning on using both.